Opinions Aug. 27, 2014

August 27, 2014
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following Indiana Supreme Court opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, Deceased
Civil collection. Affirms award of $50,440 in attorney fees to the estate from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The fee cap provision in the Medical Malpractice Act does not directly apply to the fund to limit its liability. The fund may be required to pay more than 15 percent in attorney fees.

Wednesday’s opinions
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Kenneth Owen Scrogham v. Carolyn W. Colvin, acting commissioner of Social Security
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Civil. Reverses denial of application for disability benefits and remands for further proceedings. The administrative law judge’s methodology was flawed in several respects. Three logical errors – overstating the significance of Scrogham’s daily activities, overreliance on his rehabilitative efforts as proof of his fitness for full-time work, and misinterpreting the significance of his extensive treatment – had a material effect on the ALJ’s credibility and residual functional capacity assessments.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marquise Lee v. State of Indiana
Criminal. Grants rehearing and affirms Lee’s conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery. Declines Lee’s request to follow the reasoning of the Young panel. Holds that he did not preserve this issue for appellate review and that the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it entered judgment against Lee for attempted aggravated battery as an inherently lesser included offense to the state’s charge of murder.

Thomas Walter Gorski v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms 28-year aggregate sentence for Class B felony neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury and attempted dealing in a narcotic drug as a Class B felony.

Cohen & Malad, LLP v. John P. Daly, Jr., Golitko & Daly, P.C. and Golitko Legal Group, P.C. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Affirms that Cohen & Malad is not due quantum meruit compensation from John Daly and Golitko & Daly after Daly took 24 cases with him when he left Cohen & Malad and joined Golitko & Daly.

Jaro Mayda II v. Melinda D. Barnette (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms order granting Barnette’s motion to dismiss Mayda’s complaint against her alleging fraud, defamation and failure to repay a loan purportedly established by oral agreement.

Latoya C. Lee v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Grants rehearing, but declines to reverse conviction of Class B felony attempted aggravated battery.

Layne L. Dellamuth and Anita M. Dellamuth v. Ken's Carpets Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a Carpets Unlimited (NFP)
Civil collection. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Carpets Unlimited on its complaint against the Dellamuths for failure to pay a balance owed on an account.

Evanston Insurance Company and Markel Corporation v. Samantha Meeks Family Practice, Inc., Samantha Meeks, and George Edwin Grant, et al. (NFP)
Civil plenary. Reverses and remands with instructions to deny the summary judgment motion of Meeks and her practice and grant the summary judgment motion of Evanston Insurance and Markel Corp. over whether a policy was in effect when Meeks made her claim.  

Frank Blythe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class B felonies dealing in a narcotic drug and dealing in a controlled substance.



Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well